Grauwacht
13d ago
This has got to be one of the most pointlessly evil bills ever. And I say this as someone who is very much not vegetarian.
You WILL kill ze pig. You WILL kill ze chicken. You WILL kill ze cattle. And you WILL be happy.
Grauwacht
13d ago
It would be interesting to see how people would respond if you asked them would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear or a black man. Would the fear of being thought of as a racist overcome the fear of men?
This is precisely the correct question. I would guess that this would lower the amount of women who would choose the bear. This would prove that all of this has nothing to do with statistics on danger and everything to do with projecting a desired image of yourself. In my experience, this is how women usually communicate. Usually, they are not trying to communicate some objective fact about the world, but rather to send a signal about themselves.
Grauwacht
20d ago
My point here isn't "Russia Good Actually" but that Western states very often are extraordinarily repressive, at least by the standards of the United States (but not so much by the standards of the world as a whole). There's an idea that because Western nations generally have some form of democratic government they don't repress minority groups, and I don't think that's true at all.
That's true, but the extend of the repression is simply not comparable between the West and Russia. If you are an influential person who opposes the status quo in Germany, you may have trouble getting a bank account, the media may lie about you, other parties may not want to cooperate with you, you may get expelled from the country if you are a foreign national, and the other parties may try to ban you. You can also go to jail if you express certain opinions, but this is relatively easy to avoid and doesn't hamper your political action much. This is all very bad. Conversely, if you are an influential person who opposes the status quo in Russia, you will get assassinated or put in the Gulag. Sometimes both. Further, the range of not expressible opinions is broad with unclear boundaries. Real opposition parties don't exist and elections are faked anyways.
The original law seems overly broad anyways. Why shouldn't I generally be allowed to conceal myself, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong? This kind of overly broad suspicion against the public is a sign of sick, low-trust society. Why not construct the law the other way around? Mask wearing is allowed unless committing a crime, being on a protest, etc.
More options
Context Copy link